Just want to pose a question to close out this week... A recent Harvard study "confirms media bias" against Trump with negative media reports outpacing positive ones by 80:20. Some outlets are posting at an incredible 13:1 rate for negative reporting! Can CNN, the New York Times, and other mass media outlets get back to objective news reporting once again? This doesn't mean avoiding real investigative journalism and honest criticism where due. But rather it should be fair, balanced, and work to get to truth. We can hold dear the First Amendment and do it with genuine integrity too. This would be a great day for America! ;-) (Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
I was really surprised this week when the Pope entered the election fray and made a comment about presidential candidate, Donald Trump, not being a Christian if he is wanting to build walls (on the Mexican border) and not bridges. And then the Trump campaign pointing out that the Vatican City is surrounded by what of all things...a very big wall! We have a history in the U.S. of separation of Church and State and a First Amendment that codifies this as law. To me, unless a candidate is truly criminal, discriminatory, or evil in their conduct, it's not appropriate for a lofty religious figure to publicly question their personal faith like that. Further, when it comes to immigration this is not just an issue in America, but all over Europe now with the refugee crisis, and in many other places in the world. Of course, we most definitely need to welcome refugees fleeing persecution, conflict, catastrophe, or war. But when immigration is principally an economic migration, this is something for each nation to debate and decide for what is best for them. This is not an endorsement of any candidate or party, but rather an acknowledgement that we shouldn't: 1) Mix religion and politics (and impose undue influence in a sovereign nation's elections) 2) Judge our neighbors faith by valid policy debates 3) Throw stones in glass houses (or walled areas as the case may be). If building bridges is what is promoted and preferred here then the Pope and Trump should kiss (proverbially-speaking that is) and make up. ;-) (Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Last week (19 October 2011) T3 Motion Inc. in CA launched their all electric Non-Lethal Response Vehicle (NLRV) for "crowd control."
The vehicle is a souped-up three-wheeled Segway equipped two compressed air powered rifles able to shoot 700 non-lethal rounds per minute of pepper, water, dye, or rubber projectiles, and each vehicles can carry 10,000 rounds.
According to Trendhunter, the NLRV also has a "40,000-lumen LED strobe light, a riot shield, a P.A. system, and puncture-proof tires" as well as a video camera.
The notion of a law enforcement officer shooting an automatic (non-lethal, as it may be) to quell a riot does not quite fit in with general first amendment rights for peaceful assembly and typical demonstrations that as far as I know are generally NOT an all heck break loose scenario.
I wonder whether instead of a NLRV for handling riot control, a better idea would be a Lethal Response Vehicle (LRV)--with proper training and precautions--to handle homeland security patrols at major points of entry and around critical infrastructure.
From an architecture perspective, this seems to me to be a clear case of where a "desirement" by somebody out there (gaming, fantasy, or what not) should be channeled into fulfilling a more genuine requirement for people actually protecting our homeland.
The benefits of speed and maneuverability can benefit field officers in the right situations--where real adversaries need to be confronted quickly with the right equipment.
